3 ms·

and it’s adoption rate is a great example of what that does to user experience

• TheDong 8y ago
  Are you trying to paint PGP in a positive light with this comment? Putting "user experience" anywhere near PGP/GPG makes most gpg users immediately gag. gpg offered a solution to encrypting email. No one uses it because it's unusable. gpg offered a solution to releasing signatures beside releases with the idea that users could verify them through the web of trust. The exactly zero people who notice when the person signing changes or a technical error results in an invalid signature shows no one actually verifies signatures. XMPP, when it needed e2e encryption, could not use pgp/gpg because their effectively unusable in what it's doing. gpg's adoption rate is not great, and any adoption it has is entirely in-spite of its bad UX, not because of it.
  • reificator 8y ago
    That is a very long-winded rant to point at someone who was making the same point in fewer characters.
  • labster 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure that was a negative light on PGP UX.
  • tialaramex 8y ago
    Although PGP/GPG as end user applications didn't go anywhere, the functionality is widely used. Every time I get Fedora updates they're GPG signed, if you compromise a mirror and shove crap there it isn't signed and so the system will just try a different mirror. If you try compromising the metadata, that's signed too. Instead of my bazillion of web site passwords being "in the Clown" as seems to be the popular style these days, or in some fool's hand-built database, they're in Donenfeld's password store, which uses GPG to encrypt text files with passwords in them.